Nikon 70-200mm VRII Problems?

[MrLogic]

I just assumed that once you hit 200mm you couldn't adjust the lens any further. Right?

Not sure if that was sarcasm or not, but you're right.

At minimum focus distance (1.4m) "200mm" -- the maximum -- becomes ~ 128mm as per Marianne's measurements. At that focus distance you have an effective 70-128mm zoom range according to her. Yes, 70-128. :-(

At long focus distances "200mm" is actually slightly longer than 200mm, according to various sources.

For this reason, Thom Hogan and others have stated that the VR II is technically a ~ 70-200mm zoom. I.e. no false advertising wrt to the stated zoom range.

 

[inTempus]

I just assumed that once you hit 200mm you couldn't adjust the lens any further. Right?

Not sure if that was sarcasm or not, but you're right.

At minimum focus distance (1.4m) "200mm" -- the maximum -- becomes ~ 128mm as per Marianne's measurements. At that focus distance you have an effective 70-128mm zoom range according to her. Yes, 70-128. :-(

At long focus distances "200mm" is actually slightly longer than 200mm, according to various sources.

For this reason, Thom Hogan and others have stated that the VR II is technically a ~ 70-200mm zoom. I.e. no false advertising wrt to the stated zoom range.

No, I was being serious. The linked to review with pics isn't really clear what the issue is so I went mostly on the images posted.

What I still don't understand is how it can be 128mm zoom range but still be 200mm on the long end... although the images shown clearly indicate it's quite a bit short of 200mm when set to its max focal length.

<shrug>

I'm being dense today I think.

 

[MrLogic]

Er... never mind. Please ignore. Sorry if my posts caused any confusion.

I just assumed that once you hit 200mm you couldn't adjust the lens any further. Right?

Not sure if that was sarcasm or not, but you're right.

At minimum focus distance (1.4m) "200mm" -- the maximum -- becomes ~ 128mm as per Marianne's measurements. At that focus distance you have an effective 70-128mm zoom range according to her. Yes, 70-128. :-(

At long focus distances "200mm" is actually slightly longer than 200mm, according to various sources.

For this reason, Thom Hogan and others have stated that the VR II is technically a ~ 70-200mm zoom. I.e. no false advertising wrt to the stated zoom range.

No, I was being serious. The linked to review with pics isn't really clear what the issue is so I went mostly on the images posted.

What I still don't understand is how it can be 128mm zoom range but still be 200mm on the long end... although the images shown clearly indicate it's quite a bit short of 200mm when set to its max focal length.

<shrug>

I'm being dense today I think.

The test images don't lie. It is quite a bit short of 200mm at short focus distances (where it matters), but not at long ones. Going by Marianne Oelund's numbers:

At the minimum focus distance, 1.4 meters, you have a 70-128m zoom range.

At a focus distance of 5 meters, you have a 72-176mm zoom range

At a focus distance of xy meters you have a 7z-200mm zoom range (I don't know what that focus distance is, but (only) if the focus distance is long enough you actually get to 200mm, apparently.)


edit: focus distance not to be confused with focal length, of course.

2nd edit: I may have misread your post, seeing Garbz' post below.

 

[Derrel]

Thom Hogan's December 7,2009 column addresses this lens and the internet howling about it. Keep in mind, his front page article move off the page rapidly, so this URL is good for the main site for only as long as this article is Page 1 material; it will then move to the archives.

Thom Hogan's Nikon Field Guide and Nikon Flash Guide

Partial quote: more at the site:

"Meanwhile, it seems that the number one topic of discussion on the net at the moment is the new 70-200mm VR II. Lower vignetting. Sharper in the corners. Better VR. But it loses focal length as you focus closer. That last bit has a lot of folk howling (at the closest focus distance the new lens is apparently about 128mm in equivalent focal length). There are pluses and minuses to that last bit. The VR II is sharper close up than the VR I according to reports I trust. But it does mean that you have to move closer and change perspective to get the same "subject size" at the 200mm marking and closest focus distance. How much closer? Well, if I'm calculating correctly, no more than 2.5' in any condition (but again, perspective will change if you move)."

Wow--so at close range, a photographer will have to step two and a half feet closer to get the image magnification he would get from the older lens. The horror!

 

[Garbz]

What I still don't understand is how it can be 128mm zoom range but still be 200mm on the long end...

Derrel covered that above. It is due to the IF design of the lens. Remember that just because it's set to 200mm doesn't mean all the elements are in the same spot. As you change focus the elements move slightly. The design then allows a tradeoff for how much you will let this change your focal length, compared to how much you want to keep it the same and thus have your elements in a non ideal (reads lower image quality) position.

Nikon chose the former to make one hellova sharp lens.

 

[MrLogic]

Derrel covered that above.

Where? I always seem to get lost in Derrel's postings... not that I don't "get" the majority of what he writes, but...

 

[inTempus]

Ok, so it makes sense to me now. Thanks for your patience guys.

The focal distance changes based on the location of the subject in relationship to the lens and the focus adjustments applied. So my next question is, if you have your lens set to 200mm and focused on a distant subject, then recompose towards a closer subject, as you adjust your focus your focal distance also changes?

 

[Montana]

Your focal length changes.

 

[inTempus]

Your focal length changes.

That just seems odd to me, especially given how much it changes. If you're looking through the view finder I imagine it looks pretty crazy as both your focus and focal length changes. Then again, perhaps you don't even notice.

 

[pharmakon]

Your focal length changes.

That just seems odd to me, especially given how much it changes. If you're looking through the view finder I imagine it looks pretty crazy as both your focus and focal length changes. Then again, perhaps you don't even notice.

... and this is the point where one of you nikonians with deep pockets and a little free time wows us all with a demonstrative video of this phenomenon in action.... I'm waiting....